Is dark energy Necessary?

Before you read I might be spoiling what dark energy actually is, so if you want to give it a try yourself and don't want any hints just think about it and apply problem solving methods and see what you come up with.

An alternative solution to apparent dark energy and dark matter:

1. Imagine a puddle on a rainy day. What happens as the rain droplets fall into the puddle? Why might this be a necessary property of waves? What is it about the origin of a signal that effects the geometry of a signal? Think about the origin and its properties and you'll know the answer. What is an origin itself? It's a mathematical object. What is that mathematical object called? What do you know about it? What are its geometric features? Can you think of any related geometries? What does its expansion look like then?

2. Second imagine that signals can only sum and never cancel because negativity is a property that can only be seen as emergent. I did a proof on my facebook just now. It has to do with negativity being a property of differentials that require clocks and therefor cyclical forms, and as such is emergent because time is emergent itself since it is a measurement of change if the property of negativity requires time then negativity is itself emergent, which doesn't mean it's not real, but it means when we see it we need to explain it using something that comes after the presence of cyclical forms, which means we can guess quite well that when we see oscillation with respect to some baseline we are seeing something that depends on waves, because that is how you create that apparent negativity. When we graph a coordinate system and we draw out the negative portion of the number lines those portions are intricately connected to the property of phase. So what allows for a culmination of expanding signals to produce something that goes up and down? How does the wave form wave? There's a mechanism for that. Try to figure out what it is. It's a fundamental geometric property. Start by listing properties of line segments.

3. If you have now determined what the cause and geometry are of all waves in physical space then you could try imagining how colour of light works and how many dimensions it requires. You could also try imagining how dipoles have inertia. What do protons and electrons do that causes them to have anticorrelated phase? What's the fundamental behavior of the two objects?

4. Now that you have that property in mind try imagining what happens when you bring a proton and neutron within the distance of a Planck Sphere. What happens to the electric field which pertains to the individual constituents and their anticorrelated spins? What happens to the magnetic field, which is the result of a bigger space? Why does the size of the spaces matter? What is a boundary? What concept from calculus can you use to describe an objects boundary? Now think about a Planck sphere. What does this mean about the boundary of the field the produces the magnetic moment of neutron that is different about the property that produces the electric field that could exist but is within that Planck sphere radius and of smaller distances? Can you see how these two things can become separate now?

5. Try imagining 3 circular gears in contact with one another in a plane. Now imagine the gears have a third dimension to rotate through. What happens when the gears contact one another? Imagine they're smooth and spinning really fast. Now think about a neutron and Brownian motion. Think about the positions of the subatomic components. What would happen if it were like 3 gears in contact in a plane? Now imagine that 3 dimensional space of animation again and think about the differences in angle inside the atom. Why would this cause it to jostle? Also note that the neutron does not accelerate in an electric field, but it does have a magnetic moment? Aren't they supposed to be connected? How is that magnetic moment then possible? Think again about the Planck sphere distance. What's on the boundary of that Planck sphere in terms of those constituents automatically? That is the reason the magnetic moment is still present in a neutron even though the electric fields phase has been cancelled. Does this explain a form of asymmetry?

6. SPOILER just try to think about blackholes now and why they might cause expansion of the universe: Now imagine that black holes have a spin. What might happen when the spins are not-anticorrelated? Could this be the origin of dark energy? Who knows. Could be.

7. Why does everything in causal distance appear to change in a correlated fashion like that dark energy previously suggested has an overlaying effect on reality? What happens when a signal generated from some source passes over another position? Imagine the source generates the same signal indefinitely. Why would it be able to do that by the way? Try thinking about causality, and rigidity, and emergence, and what it means for something to be outside of oneself. What are Newton's laws of motion? They're actually axiomatic. We don't need further justification so we can use those to prove something about the indefinite nature of that signal propagation from a source. You probably knew this already but you may have taken it for granted. The same wave once generated produces the same effect indefinitely in the hypergraph, but not necessarily from our perspective, but if we're talking about gravitational waves we would see that indefinite nature, because they curve spacetime itself by being in the correct number of dimensions to cause that result. Could these things explain why dark energy also appears ever present?

8. Why doesn't dark matter appear to absorb, emit, or reflect light? Could it be because it's emergent from the process of spin of a blackhole which means it's not actually present to enact that absorption, emission, or reflection of light (which is a misconception anyway because of causality and rigidity. Just think about it a little bit you'll see what I mean). If it's not there because it's just a phenomenon created by non-anticorrelation of spin then we wouldn't see it undergoing any of those behaviors in the presence of light. It's not actually a signal or interference pattern it's an emergent phenomenon caused by the spin of black holes and since it is seen as the acceleration of space away from itself due to an acceleration in the expansion of spacetime caused by gravitational waves then we would see an ever present expansion that doesn't interact with matter or light in any other way. It just causes accelerating expansion like a repulsive force and isn't actually present as a material at any point in space. So I think this is another good reason for taking my suggestion seriously. I know it's surprising but did I determine that? I think I might have. I wonder if we could calculate the rate of acceleration of atomic constituents away from one another as is the case with Brownian motion and see a relationship between the angle between the spins and the resultant acceleration of the bodies away from one another? If the spins are more anticorrelated they should produce lesser acceleration and less anticorrelated should produce more because the repulsive action would be greater when they are less aligned. An infinitesimal difference in rotation in the third dimension would produce the most rapid acceleration, perhaps it would be infinite, and this could explain why space expansion could be observed at faster than light. Maybe there's a way to use that to produce an Albian engine... but I'm kind of joking. I don't really believe we could do that.

Also if you want to give it a try can you guess how many dimensions are necessary for mass to be the same everywhere? Meaning why does mass remain constant upon operations in the overlaying coordinate system of reality? It helps to imagine it's just a big graph and the mass when animated or moved through that graph produces self similarity.

Huge spoiler because I pretty much explain the answer as to how many dimensions are required for mass and how you come to that conclusion, but it leaves a little bit to the imagination. It does give my method so it's like you have the route to the answer in a way that feels satisfying since you can justify your reason. My theory on this one has to do with properties of points, spheres, spherical waves, and operations on graphs in n-dimensions that are really simple and fundamental. If you want this hint first try imagining what a sphere looks like under different operations as cross sections in two dimensions, and then take a guess for how many dimensions you think are required for mass and try imaging if it's a wave how does that wave change under some operation in terms of its cross-sections in a lower dimensional space. What happens to the wave as you take those cross-sections like your translating the object in someway through that space? Then if you didn't guess correctly initially change your prediction and then imagine again what happens to the wave under that operation if it is this new number of dimensions. How do we obscure its phase? That is the question, because when we obscure its phase we eliminate the view of its wavelike features and create the appearance of self similarity which is like constant value of an objects mass. It might sound bizarre that you could know without actually doing any math, but you can know because it's a physical principle that just linguistically resolves to true. If you still have trouble just think what does a graph in terms of its cross sections if the n-spherical constituents are a discretized field. Imagine it's like a field of translucent 3-spheres that you can traverse through using an operation to produce those cross-sections. How many dimensions does the field of n-spheres need if it's to lose the appearance of its phase? That is the root of the problem. Imagine what is required to create the unchanging nature of mass upon translation through the hypergraph that is all of space.